Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86900 Case Number: LCR10950 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SOUTHERN HEALTH BOARD - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning the application of a sick pay scheme for non-officer grades.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court in the light of these is of the opinion that suspension of
the scheme for the reasons stated is inequitable and therefore
recommends in favour of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86900 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10950
CC861583 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10950
Parties: SOUTHERN HEALTH BOARD
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the application of a sick pay scheme for
non-officer grades.
Background:
2. In 1971 a sick pay scheme was introduced following negotiation
and agreement between Management and the Union. The sick scheme
provides for an employee to receive twelve weeks pay (less social
welfare entitlements) while on certified sick leave in any twelve
month period. Also incorporated in the sick pay scheme was a
provision whereby if a person was out sick, and in the opinion of
the Board abusing the system, he or she could be referred to one
of the Board's doctors for a medical examination, the result of
which is final and binding. As part of a cost cutting exercise
the Board reviewed the workings of the sick pay scheme and found
that a number of employees (76) were availing of the scheme on a
continuous basis over the years. The Board decided to suspend the
sick pay scheme in respect of these employees, (in future they
would be granted sick pay without pay on submission of medical
certificates). The employees concerned and the Union were
notified accordingly. The Union objected to this revised proposal
at a meeting held with the Board on 4th September, 1986.
Following this meeting the Board wrote to the Union in response to
their objections. This was unacceptable to the Union who referred
the matter to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 25th
September, 1986. A conciliation conference was held on 14th
November, 1986. As no agreement was reached, both parties agreed
to refer the issue to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held in Cork on 17th
December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The sick pay scheme is regarded as one of the most
important conditions of employment which cushions the
effect of those unfortunate enough to be taken ill. To
suspend the sick pay scheme in respect of certain
workers would cause extra hardship as medical bills
would have to be paid for out of less money.
(b) If the Board wishes to prevent abuse of the sick pay
scheme they have been informed more than once that the
Union would co-operate in doing so. There has never
been any objection to the Board implementing the
provision to refer employees to one of its own doctors.
(c) The first sentence of the terms of the sick pay scheme
states "The Scheme is applicable to all servants ....."
The practice since the introduction of the scheme has
been to grant sick pay and no person has been refused
except through the invocation of an unfavourable
medical referee's report.
Board's arguments:
4. (i) The Board has not abandoned or altered the basic sick
pay scheme which continues in operation for the vast
majority of employees.
(ii) The Board has acted reasonably in deciding that
employees who have, in the recent past, availed
generously of the scheme should co-operate in enabling
funds to be available to allow the scheme to be applied
in the case of other employees.
(iii) The Board has approximately 6,500 employees but the
temporary suspension of the scheme has applied to only
76 employees.
(iv) Because of the need to employ substitutes in many
instances, and because of the present severe financial
constraints on the Board, which is facing a #5 million
deficit in the current year, it was necessary and
reasonable for the Board to take the action against
which the Union has lodged its complaint.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court in the light of these is of the opinion that suspension of
the scheme for the reasons stated is inequitable and therefore
recommends in favour of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
3rd February, 1987. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.